Beneath the calm, turquoise waters of the South China Sea lies a powder keg: the Spratly Islands. This scattered collection of reefs and atolls, unassuming at first glance, has become the epicenter of a global power struggle. These aren’t just rocks—they’re gateways to immense oil and gas reserves, some of the richest fishing grounds on Earth, and a strategic maritime choke point overseeing over $3.5 trillion in annual trade. The Spratlys are no longer mere islands; they’re the stage for a geopolitical chess game, where nations vie for control, dominance, and the future of one of the most contested regions on the planet.

China, armed with its audacious “Nine-Dash Line” claims, has turned the Spratly Islands from a marine paradise into a militarized flashpoint. Reefs have become fortresses, waters weaponized, and historical narratives wielded like swords. Through “gray-zone tactics”—a chilling blend of intimidation, artificial island-building, and legal manipulation—Beijing enforces its will while the world watches uneasily.

The South China Sea is no mere geography; it’s a lifeline. With over 30% of global maritime trade flowing through these waters, controlling the Spratlys means commanding East Asia’s economic artery and holding sway over vital energy and military routes. For China, this is not just about sovereignty; it’s about rewriting the rules of dominance. Beijing’s relentless campaign has sparked tensions with neighbors and defied international law, turning the Spratlys into a global battleground for power and order. The question is stark: can the world uphold the rule of law, or will the Spratly Islands stand as a symbol of unchecked aggression in the 21st century?

Historical Context of China’s Incursion

China’s claims to the Spratly Islands are deeply woven into a complex historical fabric, where ancient maritime practices, imperial ambitions, and modern geopolitics collide. The Spratlys, a collection of over 100 islands, reefs, and shoals, have long been coveted by various nations, including Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and China. In ancient times, these islands were valuable for fishing and navigation. China’s claim traces back to the Han Dynasty (206 BCE–220 CE), based on the notion that Chinese fishermen frequented the islands. However, concrete evidence of Chinese sovereignty from this era is scant. Vietnam also claims the islands through records from its Nguyen Dynasty in the 18th and 19th centuries, further complicating the picture.

The modern dispute began in 1947 when the Republic of China published the Nine-Dash Line map, asserting control over nearly 90% of the South China Sea, including the Spratlys. This line, lacking clear geographical boundaries, was adopted by the People’s Republic of China in 1949 as a central tenet of its territorial claims. But its historical legitimacy is contested. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), to which China is a signatory, doesn’t support claims based on vague historical assertions.

Post-WWII geopolitical shifts further fueled tensions. Japan, which had occupied the islands during the war, renounced its claims in 1951 under the Treaty of San Francisco, leaving a power vacuum. China, the Philippines, and Vietnam all sought to claim the Spratlys, each relying on historical, geographical, or strategic arguments. By the 1970s, the discovery of significant oil and gas reserves beneath the sea escalated the stakes.

The Cold War era intensified the conflict, with regional powers aligning with the US or the Soviet Union, viewing control of the Spratlys as key to strategic security. This period saw competing outposts and increased militarization, culminating in China’s more assertive moves in the late 20th century, setting the stage for today’s simmering dispute. A crucial reality is brought to light by this historical background: the Spratly Islands represent conflicting national identities, power structures, and interpretations of international law in addition to being disputed islands. Although China’s historical claims have merit inside its own borders, they are not legally supported by contemporary frameworks such as UNCLOS. However, they keep escalating a geopolitical crisis that has no apparent end in sight.

China’s Incursion into the Spratly Islands

China’s rise as a maritime power is most dramatically illustrated in the South China Sea, where its aggressive expansion in the Spratly Islands has drawn global scrutiny. What began as cautious forays has morphed into a sophisticated and far-reaching strategy of control, executed with precision and long-term ambition.

Early Moves and Territorial Claims China’s first significant action in the Spratlys came in the 1980s, when it seized Johnson South Reef after a bloody skirmish with Vietnam in 1988, claiming over 60 Vietnamese lives. This marked the beginning of China’s physical presence in the region. Throughout the 1990s, China slowly built up its outposts and facilities, deliberately avoiding confrontations while signaling its intentions to solidify its claims.

Escalation in the 2010s The 2010s saw a dramatic shift in Beijing’s approach. Armed with a booming economy and modernized military, China adopted a “salami-slicing” strategy, making incremental moves to assert control without triggering outright conflict. From deploying fishing fleets to land reclamation projects, China subtly restructured the region’s balance of power. Between 2013 and 2017, it transformed seven reefs into artificial islands, adding over 3,200 acres of land, complete with airstrips, radar, and missile systems—turning these islands into fortified military outposts.

Dominance Through Tactics China’s dominance in the Spratlys is built on a blend of innovation and subversion. Its use of maritime militias disguised as fishing vessels has enabled it to assert control in contested waters while avoiding direct military engagement. These “gray-zone” tactics, alongside strategic dredging and reclamation, have allowed China to gradually alter the physical and geopolitical landscape.

Militarization and Strategic Power By 2020, satellite images confirmed China’s full militarization of the Spratlys, with airstrips capable of hosting fighter jets, sophisticated radar systems, and missile platforms. These installations serve not only as defensive measures but as forward bases for projecting power across the South China Sea, securing China’s foothold in one of the world’s most crucial maritime corridors.

China’s policy in the Spratly Islands is a prime example of contemporary territorial expansion; it was carried out with great strategic depth and without resorting to overt military force. China has changed the region’s reality by using economic clout, military might, and legal arguments. Even though its activities have drawn international criticism, especially from the US and its neighbors, the benefits—control over important trade routes, waterways rich in resources, and heightened geopolitical influence—seem to exceed the drawbacks. Ultimately, the Spratly Islands are now the backdrop for a larger geopolitical struggle rather than just a territorial issue. China’s hold on the islands seems to be unbreakable for the time being, but this risky move may not last.

Contemporary Strategies and Tactics: China’s Path to Maritime Dominance

China’s quest to dominate the South China Sea, especially the Spratly Islands, has evolved into a masterclass of integrated hard and soft power tactics. With a mix of military might, strategic legal maneuvers, and coercive tactics, Beijing is executing a calculated campaign to solidify its claims and weaken those of rival nations.

Island Building and Militarization

Scale and Scope
China’s island-building efforts are unmatched in modern maritime history. From 2013 to 2018, over 3,200 acres of artificial land were created across seven Spratly reefs. Massive dredging operations transformed submerged features into formidable military strongholds. Key infrastructure includes three 3,000-meter airstrips, capable of supporting fighter jets, bombers, and transport aircraft. Satellite images show the islands have been outfitted with hangars, barracks, radar systems, and missile platforms, effectively turning them into military bases.
Beyond physical infrastructure, China’s militarization includes advanced weaponry. The islands host HQ-9 surface-to-air missiles and YJ-12B anti-ship missiles, extending China’s reach up to 300 kilometers. Regular military drills and naval deployments bolster China’s presence, signaling dominance and deterrence.

Coercive Tactics

Maritime Militia
A cornerstone of China’s strategy is its maritime militia—fishing vessels manned by government-trained personnel. These boats, disguised as civilian fishing fleets, swarm contested waters, harassing rival fishing boats and naval patrols. In 2021, over 200 Chinese vessels anchored at Whitsun Reef within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone (EEZ), refusing to leave despite claims of seeking shelter from bad weather. This illustrates China’s use of civilian assets for military-style operations.

Gray Zone Tactics
China excels in gray zone tactics, actions that stop short of full-blown conflict yet remain highly provocative. These tactics include close encounters between Chinese Coast Guard ships and foreign vessels, aggressive naval maneuvers, and interference with resource exploration in the EEZs of the Philippines and Vietnam. Such actions blur the lines between civilian and military activity, complicating responses from other nations.

Legal and Diplomatic Maneuvers

Disregard for International Law
China’s claims are based on the controversial Nine-Dash Line, which lacks legal standing under international law. Despite the 2016 ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration affirming the Philippines’ sovereign rights, China continues to defy the ruling, dismissing it as “null and void.” This blatant disregard for international norms has set a troubling precedent and undermines global legal frameworks.

Wolf Warrior Diplomacy
China’s diplomatic approach has taken a more combative turn with “Wolf Warrior Diplomacy.” This aggressive stance involves accusing rival nations of provocations and framing China as the victim of Western conspiracies. The 2020 Scarborough Shoal standoff exemplified this approach, with China dismissing Philippine protests and accusing Manila of stirring tensions. This rhetoric strengthens China’s domestic narrative but complicates any diplomatic resolution.

Contemporary Issues and Challenges: The South China Sea Dilemma

The Spratly Islands are at the heart of a complex and escalating series of challenges, blending military, legal, environmental, and geopolitical factors. China’s assertive actions, coupled with responses from rival claimants and external powers, have turned the South China Sea into one of the world’s most contested regions.

Militarization of the Spratly Islands

China’s transformation of the Spratlys is unparalleled in modern military strategy. What were once mere reefs have become fully operational military bases, equipped with airstrips over 3,000 meters long, capable of hosting fighter jets and bombers. Satellite images show advanced radar systems and missile platforms, such as HQ-9 surface-to-air and YJ-12B anti-ship missiles, enhancing Beijing’s ability to project power.

The Chinese military, including its Navy, Coast Guard, and maritime militia, maintains a near-constant presence in the area, effectively challenging the sovereignty of neighboring nations and complicating international freedom of navigation.

Presence of U.S. and Allied Forces

In response, the U.S. and its allies have stepped up their military activities. The U.S. Navy conducts Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) to contest China’s territorial claims, while countries like Japan, Australia, and India have increased naval deployments and joint exercises. This growing external presence is turning the South China Sea into a geopolitical flashpoint, where miscalculations could spark open conflict.

Legal Challenges and Diplomatic Deadlock

China’s actions blatantly ignore international rulings, particularly the 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration decision that declared China’s claims under the Nine-Dash Line invalid and affirmed Philippine sovereignty. Despite this, China has dismissed the ruling, continuing its aggressive stance. Efforts to create a binding Code of Conduct (COC) for the region have failed after two decades of negotiations, leaving the South China Sea mired in legal uncertainty. This diplomatic deadlock perpetuates an ongoing cycle of claims and confrontations, with no resolution in sight.

Economic and Environmental Impacts

China’s dredging operations to build artificial islands have had devastating environmental consequences, including the destruction of critical coral reefs. Studies indicate that over 60% of the region’s reefs are degraded, threatening marine biodiversity. The local fishing industries, essential for food security in Southeast Asia, have also been disrupted. Harassment of fishermen by China’s Coast Guard and maritime militia has forced them out of traditional fishing zones, exacerbating economic instability and food insecurity.

Regional Power Dynamics

The region’s militarization has intensified tensions between China and rival claimants like the Philippines, Vietnam, and Malaysia. These nations have fortified their maritime defenses, but China’s military and economic power outweighs their efforts. The external powers like the U.S., India, and Japan have become pivotal players in shaping the regional balance of power. The Quad alliance—comprising the U.S., Japan, India, and Australia—focuses on promoting a “free and open Indo-Pacific,” while China’s Belt and Road Initiative strengthens its economic influence in Southeast Asia. This tug-of-war between competing powers heightens the region’s geopolitical volatility.

Future Outlook

Short-Term Prospects

In the immediate future, the Spratly Islands will likely see continued militarization by China, accompanied by heightened tensions and diplomatic gridlock. The risk of accidental clashes, particularly between Chinese forces and U.S. or allied naval vessels conducting Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs), remains significant. Harassment of fishermen and resource exploration activities by China’s maritime militia will persist, further straining relations with neighboring countries.

Medium-Term Scenarios

ASEAN could play a pivotal role in mediating disputes and fostering cooperation among claimant states, though its effectiveness depends on overcoming internal divisions. International pressure on China to comply with the 2016 PCA ruling may increase, supported by coordinated efforts from the U.S., EU, and Quad nations. Economic measures, such as targeted sanctions or incentives for peaceful negotiations, might emerge as tools to influence Beijing’s behavior.

Long-Term Implications

If current trends persist, China could solidify de facto control over the Spratly Islands, establishing a precedent for disregarding international maritime law. This would weaken the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and challenge global governance structures. The region could see a shift toward a multipolar Indo-Pacific, with regional alliances evolving to counterbalance China’s dominance. Such dynamics may reshape global trade routes, security strategies, and economic partnerships for decades to come.

Conclusion

The Spratly Islands symbolize a broader contest between sovereignty, international law, and geopolitical ambition. While the future remains uncertain, the region’s trajectory will depend on the collective resolve of claimant states, ASEAN, and the broader international community to uphold the rules-based order and maintain stability in one of the world’s most critical maritime corridors.